Browse categories:

Hide popular topics:

/r/technology is a place to share and discuss the latest developments, happenings and curiosities in the world of technology; a broad spectrum of conversation as to the innovations, aspirations, applications and machinations that define our age and shape our future.

Rules:

1. Submissions

Guidelines:

Submissions must be primarily news and developments relating to technology

Submissions relating to business and politics must be sufficiently within the context of technology in that they either view the events from a technological standpoint or analyse the repercussions in the technological world.

Please do not submit the following:

i) Submissions violating the guidelines.

ii) Images, audio or videos: Articles with supporting image and video content are allowed; if the text is only there to explain the media, then it is not suitable. A good rule of thumb is to look at the URL; if it's a video hosting site, or mentions video in the URL, it's not suitable.

iii) Requests for tech support, questions or help: submit to /r/techsupport, /r/AskTechnology, another relevant community or our weekly Support Saturday threads.

iv) Petitions, Surveys or Crowdfunding (Including ICOs) - submissions of this nature will be removed.

vii) Mobile versions of sites, url shorteners: please directly submit the desktop version of a webpage in all cases.

viii) Social media links/profiles or promotions (eg. Facebook, Instagram, Pintrest etc). Tweets should not be used as a news source unless an official announcement by a verified company or spokesperson.

2. Behaviour

Remember the human You are advised to abide by reddiquette; it will be enforced when user behaviour is no longer deemed to be suitable for a technology forum. Remember; personal attacks, abusive language, trolling or bigotry in any form are therefore not allowed and will be removed.

3. Titles

Submissions must use either the articles title and optionally a subtitle. Or, if neither are accurate, a suitable quote, which must:

Removed threads will either be given a removal reason flair or comment response; please message the moderators if this did not occur.

All legitimate, answerable modmail inquiries or suggestions will be answered to the best of our abilities within a reasonable period of time.

Rule violators will be warned. Repeat offenders will be temporarily banned from one to seven days. An unheeded final warning will result in a permanent ban. This may be reversed upon evidence of suitable behavior.

FCC Compliance Statement - This device complies with part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: This device may not cause harmful interference, and this device must accept *any** interference received*, including interference that may cause undesired operation.

That's jamming, girls, and you're not allowed to stop it. There goes any tactical comm, including wi-fi.

EDIT: In fact, I'll bet one of the first elements of any "crackdown" is local jamming of "subversive" wi-fi nets, along with well-publicized arrests of a few dweebs, in order to stampede the rest of the cattle back into the pen.

Is this even possible? I would think that developed countries would have enough privatized infrastructure that, while the government might control a lot of internet resources, they could never squash all of it. The internet seems too organically structured to have a single off switch.

You arecorrect and that is why the bill allows ISPs to determine how to comply with a lawful order to cut off traffic from a certain country. There is absolutely no intention of creating an actual physical kill switch.

The FCC has had the authority to shut down private telecom networks for the entire 75 years that the FCC has existed. There are 10 networks that make up the internet backbone in the US. 10 phone calls could have them shut down in an hour.

Ironic: The Internet was created out of the concern the enemy (e.g. Communist countries) could shut down our communications with a single point of attack. Now, we're facing a single point of kill (presidential "off" switch), not from a foreign country, but from our own government.

"If it does go anywhere, though, should Americans be concerned about the Internet being shut down in the U.S.? In all likeliehood, no. Besides the fact that Lieberman himself says that his bill would not provide the government with an Internet kill switch, the bill - in theory - is intended to protect U.S. Web infrastructure from attacks that would irreperably harm the network rather than squash anti-government protests.

In Egypt, it appears that the government demanded that its four major ISPs shut down service. Could the U.S. government get away with asking Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, and the like to shut down their networks to stop citizens from organizing protests? Anything is possible, of course, but at this point, it seems unlikely.

While it does not explicitly call out the "internet", it is written in such a vague way that it could easily include the internet and any form of communication (and even the 1st article mentions this, though for some reason they tend to think it still doesn't apply??)

It also doesn't help that the list of DHS-approved assets is hidden from public (therefore we will never know what they can kill with ease)

first off i would like to show you another quote from the tpm article:

"Phillips told TPMDC, "This language was developed with the companies who would be affected by it... The Senator [Lieberman] discussed the bill with privacy experts, civil liberties experts, companies affected by it, the Administration and the House." She expressed a certain level of shock about the backlash, pointing us to the committee's statements of support, which includes quotes from McAfee and Symantec executives (both members of the DHS Information Technology Committee); from the Center for Democracy and Technology -- which gave a quote seemingly not in support of the bill to CNET; and from the regulation-hating U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

On the one hand, yes, it does appear that this gives the government power over marginally more companies than it has now: there are critical infrastructure owners and operators not covered by the 1934 law that would be required to come up with a plan to respond to cyber attacks that meets certain standards set by the government. On the other hand, the Emergency Broadcast System, which requires that all television and radio stations interrupt their programming with a loud buzzing noise and carry the emergency message from the government might become a thing of the past if owners and operators could find better (and less disruptive) ways to alert Americans that there is an emergency. And, regardless, the President would only have 30 days to impose the state of emergency with little oversight, and the companies would be required to be as minimally disruptive to the rest of us as possible in the emergency plans they develop.

The "kill switch," though, won't be coming to the underside of the President's desk anytime soon, though. In fact, Lieberman's people seem to be correct: their bill actually just takes it away.
"

second, "critical infrastructure" is not that vague. i think the idea that the blog sphere will be shut down seems highly unlikely. i doubt that any real damage to free speech could happen.

yes, the DHS list is hidden. as baker said "we don’t want to give adversaries a handy list of the best targets".

on the other hand, the risk of a cyber attack is very real. and lets not forget, that when the country is hit, the rights of the people take that hit too.

i was surprised by the backlash this bill had. one thing i do want to make clear though. your comment about rioting is absolutely absurd

just read the articles, and the bill, and youll see what they mean by "myth". (parts of the internet. as in not all of the internet. nothing will probably happen to the blogsphere. and shutting it down, is not the only method. so a bill that says to shut or kill the internet, as baker said "The epithet “Internet kill switch” was first coined to describe (to attack, really) a much different bill proposed by a different committtee") and as ive quoted before from TPM: "The "kill switch," though, won't be coming to the underside of the President's desk anytime soon, though. In fact, Lieberman's people seem to be correct: their bill actually just takes it away"

Listen to the words of Lieberman. How is this a "myth" when it's coming right from the horse's mouth? Yes he said "parts." But if you can't see the camel's nose that is, I don't know how to help you. That's like the Senate voting to authorize the use of force in Iraq thinking Bush wasn't going to use it. For the record, Lieberman said:

“Right now, China, the government, can disconnect parts of its internet, in the case of war, we need to have that here too." – Senator Joe Lieberman

its a myth, because people actually thought it was an Internet kill switch. as in actually shutting down the whole Internet. while many sources say, that the blog sphere isn't in real risk. even the article in this post. if you read the articles, and read my comments, you would see that im saying they might use this power in case of an emergency. I'm not saying they wont disconnect it. its possible, but that is not the only method. the Iraq comment is weird. your arguments are simplistic, and i really dont want to waste my time. so im not going to respond to you anymore.

in another thread in truereddit, someone said something that sound very true to me now.

I don't think anyone thought the 'internet kill switch' was literally some button somewhere sitting in the oval office.

Let me try to spell it out for you: the defense a lot of democratic senators gave for authorizing the use of force in Iraq was, "well, we didn't think the president would actually use it." Look how that turned out. I'm sorry you're too obtuse to follow the point.

i think from reddits reaction, a lot of people thought that the internet will be shut down like what happened in egypt. its weird that you dont understand or see that.

and i think redditmyasss said, that he understands that they can use that power. he does think they will use it. they might abuse it, but its unlikely it will harm free speech. so its not like iraq. he expects them to use their authority

As a hypothetical, expert level question, is there a situation so bad that it would actually be better to shut down the Internet for a limited time, say, seconds to days, as opposed to what would happen if it was left on?

I'm thinking a national disaster, like a massive solar flare, or an aggressive cyber war attack by a country, designed to maximize loss of life, or conversely, to get control of the Internet and shut it down? (That is, shutting it down to keep someone else from shutting it down).

I could be wrong here but these are my observations. US is in absolutely no danger of getting an internet kill switch.

Remember the Egyptians were revolting, following the examples of Tunisians who claimed recent localized success.

US Citizens live a privileged live (so to speak), hence until that comfort zone is destroyed, and it is far from being destroyed, there is no need for a revolt. No revolt means no need to silence anyone. Hitting a kill switch in the US would do more harm than good.

Yes, I seriously think the NSA could not make this happen within moments. There's several dozen paths AND providers in the United States and they would have to have a kill switch on every single one of them. As an example, my place of employment has:

Several different commercial ISPs, each of them with several paths across the Atlantic and Pacific.

A direct connection into a global research network with no intermediate devices

Connections into a couple other research networks that also have different POPs in the US and world

A private MPLS network through 4th global provider

For the NSA to be able to operate a kill switch much like Egypt did would require an insane amount of coordination with global providers (some of which are not based in the United States) as well as direct contact with institutions like the one I work for.

And even then, the United States would only be able to cut off outside access; I think it's practically impossible for the US to be able to cut off the internet inside the country.